How do you see Genghis Khan?

[christos200]

The normans made england a modern civilized kingdom.

 

[Phrossack]

The normans made england a modern civilized kingdom.

Nonsense. The English weren't exactly baby-eating savages in loincloths before, and the Normans brought a lot of death, destruction, higher taxes, and famine.

 

[Traitorfish]

The normans made england a modern civilized kingdom.

In what sense? You keep saying that, but you haven't really substantiated it with historical references. What about the Anglo-Saxons was so very pre-modern and uncivilised, and what about the Normans was so very modern and civilised?

 

[Ataxerxes]

The normans made england a modern civilized kingdom.

The subsequent histories written by the Normans might make it seem that way, but there's no evidence of that. In terms of being civilized, I might actually rank the Anglo-Saxons slightly higher on that scale. The main difference in Civilizing was that the Normans had the upper class speaking French instead of Old English but there wasn't much to choose between. Normans weren't that far from their Viking roots at that time. At least the English didn't have a leader known as "The Bastard" which is what William was called before he became William the Conqueror. Win and the world loves you.

Besides, if the Anglo-Saxons hadn't fought the Vikings first William might just be a footnote to history.

 

[LightSpectra]

He's never going to substantiate what he says because logical argumentation and historical facts are barbaric.

 

[Linkman226]

He's never going to substantiate what he says because logical argumentation and historical facts are barbaric.

Naturally

Christos you're only making more of a fool out of yourself. Sort of like in IOT VII. Seems like this is becoming a habit.

 

[Tee Kay]

christos200 is notably a troll. Ignore him.

 

[Dachs]

On a related note, I've successfully begun popularizing the use of the word "notably"! Either that, or it's increasingly organically BUT I SHALL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY ALL THE SAME

 

[Louis XXIV]

He centralised rule? Seems to me that he actually decentralised rule and let a sophisticated taxation system go to ruins while he was doing it.

Well, England seemed to be effectively controlled by six or so barons. Yes, he ended up subdividing it into smaller pieces in a way, but that dispersed opposition and allowed him more effective control over his domains than many continental counterparts and more than Edward the Confessor had (the removal of elections of the monarch was a major factor as well). Plus, I feel the most important function of a medieval monarch was to provide a court system and William went the farthest in that regard.

Or more proximate factors like the competence of the Monarch?

I think that's a fair point, although I think they went hand in hand. I also still stand by the island nature of England being an important factor either way.

I literally do not see how a Parliament makes a country European...?

It isn't. I don't agree with that persons claims and I think we're in agreement for the most part. I think my attempt is to provide nuance to suggest that William didn't lead to status quo or, worse, a step backward. Maybe a step sideways - back in some directions, forward in others, different overall.

I think the obvious effects of the Conquest were hugely destructive and much William was given credit for would have happened anyway (and he probably slowed it down). I don't think he drew England to the Continent (which would have happened anyway - these forces were the reason he had a claim to the throne in the first place), but I think there are some things of England he can point to.

 

[Lord Baal]

At that time england was a bunch of barbaric kingdoms until 1066 or so when they were united!!

I don't see why not. He's kind of similar to Reza Khan in many respects (except for not being a Mongolian where Reza Khan was, notably, Iranian). I always felt it a bit mystifying that the Bolsheviks decided that it was worth their time to intervene in Mongolia but, apparently, not Iran.

Other than, of course, Ungern-Sternberg being a megalomaniacal lunatic who was actively trying to destroy Bolshevism. (Eventually.) He's one of my favorite crazy people ever.

Ungern -Sternberg is quite possibly the closest thing the world has ever had to a supervillian. He's awesome. I think only Idi Amin surpasses him in my own list of "favourite crazy people ever."

Well that's a thesis that's rather new to me. Raping and pillaging (not that this is the only thing the vikings did, but I wouldn't expect your average scrub poster to know better) is more civilized than the advancements made by the Carolingians in philosophy, agriculture, literature and art.

They brought exciting new innovations in rape and pillage to mainstream Europe.

I'd just like to say, when von Ungern-Sternberg isn't the craziest guy in your civil war, you're doing something awfully wrong.

Or awfully right.

1) Charlemange was the only barbarian that i can say that was great emperor. He was even better than some roman emperors, but his empire was destroyed after his death while the byzantine empire lasted for more than 1.000 years.

2) There were only some anglo- saxon barbarian small kingdoms until 1066 when the normans took over and unite england. Without them england now would have been a third world country divided in small kingdoms.

Also the byzantines where so advanced that if the english, at that era, saw them they would think that they are aliens.

I mean you cant compare the glory of byzantium with the small barbaric kingdoms of england.

No, no, no and no.

It's funny that no historical records survive to that effect, then, given that numerous Englishmen served in the Varangian Guard. (A majority of the guard were English in the late 11th century, in fact, having seen a large influx of Godwin loyalists after 1066.)

Was there not an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Armenia around this time?

I mean Charlemagne was a good guy but thats all. He was a great emperor, good general but after his death his empire was divided. He is like a smalller version of alexander the great. Also he was the first to steal the roman title.

Except that his empire was divided by his son, not him, and only by choice. That's like saying my father is a terrible businessman for leaving half of his money to me and half to my sister. Or rather, like saying my grandfather is a terrible businessman because my father is leaving half his money to me and half to my sister.

Also after 1066 england started to become a superpower.

Yes, Englad in the 11th and 12th centuries was notably a superpower. Or, rather, a potential superpower.

Until then there ware a bunch of barbarians.

Please define the term "barbarian."

I hope i dont sound very nationalist.

You sound like the worst kind of hypernationalist, racist scum, actually. I'm hoping you're merely a troll, and don't genuinely believe this garbage, but you never know on the interwebs.

Hint: when you're incapable of referring to your country's historical predecessor without using the word "glory" twice a paragraph, you're probably a nationalist.

We should start a thread called: "... You just might be a nationalist."

I know Louis. He tried to keep the empire united but the empire was divided even when he was trying to keep it united.

He tried to keep it united by voluntarily splitting it?

Also Normans where the one that created modern england.

[citation needed]

Technically Christos is right. Considering the Byzantines spoke Greek, and barbaroi means those who don't speak Greek... a lot of Europe was barbaroi.

Post wins thread.

Well thats history. Also even the roman empire had never been realy great because;

1) The poor where far too many than the rich.

2) They used barbarians for army.

3) Rome, even with all its empire, was a city state like Athens and Sparta, and a city state cant rule for too long the entire world.

Also the only true empires at medeival era where the arabs and chinese.

1) True of every society everywhere, ever.

2) Not true. Also, Byzantium used huge numbers of mercenaries, so this would hardly be a reason to claim that the Western Empire was not great even if true.

3) Also not true. Tell me which city was the capital of the Western Empire when it fell. I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Rome.

Also, citation needed on you last, un-numbered point.

2) Thanks to the normans england became from a barbarian kingdom to a glorius empire.

Please provide evidence to back up this claim.

The normans made england a modern civilized kingdom.

[citation needed]

On a related note, I've successfully begun popularizing the use of the word "notably"! Either that, or it's increasingly organically BUT I SHALL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY ALL THE SAME

The word "notably" is notably barbaric.

 

[Traitorfish]

Was there not an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Armenia around this time?

Sort of. There was a Byzantine colony in Crimea that was recorded as being inhabited by Anglo-Saxon refugees, although nobody's really sure how big it was or how many Anglo-Saxons actually ended up there. I think the modern perspective is that a bunch of exiled English nobles were installed as the local bigwigs by the Empire, rather than it actually being a thoroughly English settlement.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sort of. There was a Byzantine colony in Crimea that was recorded as being inhabited by Anglo-Saxon refugees, although nobody's really sure how big it was or how many Anglo-Saxons actually ended up there. I think the modern perspective is that a bunch of exiled English nobles were installed as the local bigwigs by the Empire, rather than it actually being a thoroughly English settlement.

That's actually very interesting.

 

[Ajidica]

3) Also not true. Tell me which city was the capital of the Western Empire when it fell. I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Rome.

The answer is either Ravenna, Milan, or wherever the guy with the biggest army currently was.

 

[Lord Baal]

The answer is either Ravenna, Milan, or wherever the guy with the biggest army currently was.

You're right, but I won't mention with which answer until christos200 gets back.

Thanks Traitorfish.

 

[Dachs]

Was there not an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Armenia around this time?

The Anglo-Saxons were elsewhere, as Traitorfish mentioned. However, for several years in the 1070s the Norman adventurer Roussell de Bailleul tried to set up a Norman kingdom in the Armeniakon Thema; the various Byzantine governments of Michael VII saw him as a greater threat to the short-term existence of the Empire than, well, anything else (true). Turkmen ended up fighting for both sides, as well as taking advantage of the civil war to raid widely in Kappadokia and Galatia, such that by 1081, when Alexios Komnenos seized the throne, they were the most powerful single group in Anatolia.

 

[r16]

I've read that three times and I still can't figure out how its relevant to the topic.

the relevancy is supposed to be by the way people can change things within living memory , as such the proposition has been - for real or as a joke , Cengiz was a modern day invention .

 

[biar]

To people comparing Genghis Khan to Hitler.

History was created by the masses, not individuals. There would've been another Hitler during the eve of World War 2 due to the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles, or another Genghis Khan given Mongolia's limited resources.

Leaders of the ancient worlds were just as barbaric and inhumane as Genghis Khan.

 

[Lord Baal]

To people comparing Genghis Khan to Hitler.

History was created by the masses, not individuals. There would've been another Hitler during the eve of World War 2 due to the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles, or another Genghis Khan given Mongolia's limited resources.

Leaders of the ancient worlds were just as barbaric and inhumane as Genghis Khan.

Determinism is incorrect sir.

 

[Gone 3 the Celt]

I see Genghis Khan as an epic person, but i must admit, he was a crazy, bloodthursty, warmongerer

 

[Ataxerxes]

To people comparing Genghis Khan to Hitler.

History was created by the masses, not individuals. There would've been another Hitler during the eve of World War 2 due to the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles, or another Genghis Khan given Mongolia's limited resources.

Leaders of the ancient worlds were just as barbaric and inhumane as Genghis Khan.

I agree with Lord Baal, you can't use determinism. There are so many variables.

Anyway, I can't accept Genghis Khan as inevitable given limited resources. If anything, that makes him less likely to appear, not more.

I also don't see Hitler as inevitable. Madmen are not predictable. He was actually losing a little support when he became Chancellor. A populist leader might be likely, but not someone like him necessarily. Without the depression, everything changes. I have a pet peeve about the unfairness of Versailles. Admittedly it was a "Dictated Peace" but it was easier than the treaty Germany forced on the Russians in 1917.